sc of india21

Supreme Court’s Firm Stance: Prioritizing Justice and Compliance in Bail Proceedings

Title: Gulab Singh vs State Of Haryana & Another

Citation: CRM-M-52639-2023


Decided on: 17.10.2023


This case appears to involve allegations of assault and threats made against Azad Singh’s father by a group of individuals including Sandeep Singh and the application for anticipatory bail for some of the co-accused is being discussed in the Co-ordinate bench. In this case Supreme Court made several key observations and issued a directions based on the circumstances.


In this case, the FIR has been filed based on a statement given by Azad Singh, a resident of Ballu. Azad Singh and his elder uncle, Sh. Arjun Singh, were going to their fields in a buggy, following Azad’s father on a motorcycle for grass cutting. While they were near their field, a motor cycle and a car stopped in front of their fields and a group of individuals, including Sandeep Singh, Methab Singh, Lakha Singh and Gurlal Singh arrived at a scene. These individuals were armed with swords and sticks. The group of individuals began beating Azad Singh’s father. Azad Singh states that they had filed court cases against Sandeep Singh previously, resulting in a sentence for him. Sandeep Singh had been pressuring them to compromise on these cases.

Azad Singh alleges that the group of individuals including Sandeep Singh and people had wrongfully injured his father and seeks legal action against them. Regarding the anticipatory bail applications, it is mentioned that the second anticipatory bail applications of co-accused, Sukha Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, have been entertained by the Co-ordinate Bench, and interim protection has been granted in their cases on specific dates.


The case involves the petitioner filing an application for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s stance that the previous anticipatory might have been withdrawn instead of being considered onits merits. The principle of res judicata should not be applied to an application for bail. The Supreme Court concluded that the earlier order 07.03.2017 should be ser aside. The case would stand revived before the High Court and the matter would be listed for consideration on 03.04.2017 in accordance with the law.

The judgment emphasizes that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are entirely different. It accuses the petitioner of attempting to mislead the court by concealing the fact of an order dated 17.08.2022, which required the petitioner to surrender within a week. The petitioner had not complied with this order. The judgment also notes that the stay on proceedings before the trial court, granted under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was only issued on 28.10.2022. The court suggests that had the petitioner surrendered, they could have applied for regular bail, and the High Court might have directed the trial court to expeditiously consider the regular bail application within three days.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By- Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *